College Policy Debate Forums
March 18, 2019, 05:40:20 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
   Home   Help Search Login Register  
Pages: 1 [2]
Author Topic: 2013-14 Topic Process - Guidelines, Dates, Committee  (Read 17221 times)
kelly young
Full Member
Posts: 244

« Reply #15 on: May 16, 2013, 10:46:27 AM »

good point, zive, although I think it may be a bit more difficult to be negative this time around...that's just a feeling from having jumped into it all very recently.  keep up your posts, that perspective is valuable.  kevin

will going negative really be harder this time?  seems like neg fiat is anything goes these days, plus you have way more critical stuff to say.  i cant imagine what it was like to negate back few options...

the neg is still forced to defend unchecked executive authority on some level...if you do not want to fight "terrorism" or improve "security," your base arguments are somewhat limited.  "dictatorship good" only goes so far, even when running critical positions.  yes, there are some CPs and there will always be options, I just think it's going to be a bit rough and a bit generic--as well as uphill against most perms.  keep in mind that the platform for many critiques is govt/state bad--that's the same position the aff will be taking (even including a criticism of governmental "fiat" in some ways).  yes, i talked on this forum about the XO swallowing up the air in the room--that is more because of a lack of other solid options than it is an endorsement of the XO.  It will work out and the neg will survive, it's just that in the early 90s the positions on both sides were a bit more varied.  9-11 brought about a more rapid shift toward the executive, but for reasons that I think are harder to defend when you really examine them.

Critique alternatives = no need to defend SQ unchecked powers. And the whitewashing of imperialism/hegemony bad argument is accessible whether policy or critical.  Again, you don't have to be little Cheneys to be negative. Many people believe that congressional or court oversight/restrictions do little but legitimate the broader war machine. This was the liberal critique of the WPR in 1973 and it remains a similar critique of contemporary efforts to create statutory restraint.

American Forensic Association Vice President,
Director of Forensics/Associate Professor/Area Head (Com Studies),
Department of Communication
Wayne State University
kelly.young [at]
kevin kuswa
Sr. Member
Posts: 346

« Reply #16 on: May 16, 2013, 11:18:39 AM »

sure, i agree, but whitewashing links or arguments about legitimizing the war system are tough to win against a well-conceived permutation.  the aff is still going in the direction the neg is calling for and at some point the neg's alternative will be guilty of the same link story except worse.  don't get me wrong, the neg arguments from the controversy paper are solid options and the neg is not doomed.  you have to admit, though, that the "little Cheney" approach is the most intrinsic and obvious route on the neg--the controversy paper states as much.  once you get into the liberal critiques of the WPR (and most affs will probably be smaller than that), the arrows in the aff's quiver multiply.   Here's a nice quotation from the controversy paper: "The negative is dominated by national security hawks and advocates of a strong presidency who demand that any and all action be taken to counter contemporary threats of global terrorism and weapons of mass destruction (WMD) proliferation."

i don't want to go too far with this and i still favor much more affirmative flexibility even if it makes the negative's research burden a bit greater, i'm just interested in carving out a sense of where the neg may be forced to go and how that will influence different wordings.
Pages: 1 [2]
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!